Search form

You are here

I was curious until recently of what the next iteration of DnD will have. As of this week I found out, and I am disappointed. DnD has reverted back to essentially 3rd Edition from what I witnessed of a playtest in my local comic store. Again you will have more purpose to a party as a fighter at all levels; whereas spell casters are once more the "one spell a day" wonder having to fall back to bad crossbow attack rolls starting out. Don't say that the concept of unlimited cantrips is an improvement; because it is really nothing new from what I have heard people who play Pathfinder speak of. Ray of Frost may be a little more damaging, but go up against a cold proof monster and say hello to the crossbow and bad attack rolls again. I am not so much disappointed in seeing them switch from 4th edition which tried to make every class different but equal in usefulness then I am angry that they are trying to rehash old editions and putting a bright new cover on it. I will not be buying into DnD Next.

Yes, as it is presented, Next is essentially a massive re-balancing of 3E. Is that such a bad thing, though? I guess it is, if you didn't like 3E, or if you think they're balancing it incorrectly, but you say that is not the major cause of your disappointment.

What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

Here we have someone who briefly "checked out" the latest playtest at a hobby store. Saw they didn't like some things they think they perceived, made sweeping assumptions, and dismissed it as if it were the final product.

As if things aren't in a state of flux and development. As if its a real RPG. As if somehow they just experienced 5e.

Honestly, it dumbfounds me sometimes.

“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.

What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

Here we have someone who briefly "checked out" the latest playtest at a hobby store. Saw they didn't like some things they think they perceived, made sweeping assumptions, and dismissed it as if it were the final product.

As if things aren't in a state of flux and development. As if its a real RPG. As if somehow they just experienced 5e.

Honestly, it dumbfounds me sometimes.

This. It is still far too early in the development process to make any final judgements about the game. Everyone knows that it's not well balanced, and that there are some large-sclare changes that need to be made. It takes time to develop them and release a new package, however. If you have some opinions about how the game is going so far, sign up for the playtest and take part in the surveys.

Yes, as it is presented, Next is essentially a massive re-balancing of 3E. Is that such a bad thing, though? I guess it is, if you didn't like 3E, or if you think they're balancing it incorrectly, but you say that is not the major cause of your disappointment.

Yes, it's 3E with a sanity check, kind of.To be honest I'd be moderately ok with this if 4E didn't happen in between. Now I just can't go back to that style of play anymore.

There are elements of 3E that I can see, but I didn't find them as glaringly as others (and I've played a LOT of 3E). I think, again, that it's about perception. When you look at the classes tables, they remind me instantly of 3E as they're level-by-level, have a weapon/spell attack progression, and gain certain stuff at certain levels (with dead levels abound). While this might not mean that it plays like 3E, it does in a sense look like 3E.

The Maneuvers help make it a bit better and there less of an emphasis on Feats to make your character better. Actually, I think the feats currently are in poor shape and I'm not too thrilled with any of them at the moment.

Yes, as it is presented, Next is essentially a massive re-balancing of 3E. Is that such a bad thing, though? I guess it is, if you didn't like 3E, or if you think they're balancing it incorrectly, but you say that is not the major cause of your disappointment.

Yes, it's 3E with a sanity check, kind of. To be honest I'd be moderately ok this if 4E didn't happen in between. Now I just can't go back to that style of play anymore.

There's this too. D&D:Next, so far, hasn't made me feel like a real hero or even very heroic as 4E did, which is something I'm not too fond of. It also has lost a lot of the cinematic feeling that 4E's abilitys tended to give me and my group.

Well, the folks on the paizo forums seem to be snarking it as a Pathfinder-lite. If this came out in '08 instead of 4th (as mentioned by Uskglass), then I'm sure this would have been a much more celebrated product, but that's just not the case. So, we have a big problem here. However, I'm sure more options to kitbash into a 4e style game with groovy new elements will come around soon. That or everyone jumps ship to 13th Age (and the Pathfinder problem starts again!)

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

I think a lot of people just are not used to seeing a product that is actually in development. A lot of the time when a game company makes a public beta available, it is actually just a partial nearly release ready version and they are just fishing for free publicity.

Next has the additional problem that there are many deep fissures between what people are looking for in the game. There are a lot of people who think the 4e changes are vast improvements to the game and don't want to go back, and there are a lot of people who think the 4e changes made the game worse and want to go back to older style of gaming and mechanics. Coming up with a compromise between the two is a huge challenge.

Next has the additional problem that there are many deep fissures between what people are looking for in the game. There are a lot of people who think the 4e changes are vast improvements to the game and don't want to go back, and there are a lot of people who think the 4e changes made the game worse and want to go back to older style of gaming and mechanics. Coming up with a compromise between the two is a huge challenge.

This is probably the biggest hurdle IMO. With to extreamly different ideologies on how the game should be played and how much power goes to both DMs and Players, it's hard for me to see the connection we're supposed to share as "D&D gamers". And while I can appreciate their desire to have a core system for things to be bolted onto, I'm just not sure how this is all supposed to come together.

Well, the folks on the paizo forums seem to be snarking it as a Pathfinder-lite. If this came out in '08 instead of 4th (as mentioned by Uskglass), then I'm sure this would have been a much more celebrated product, but that's just not the case. So, we have a big problem here. However, I'm sure more options to kitbash into a 4e style game with groovy new elements will come around soon. That or everyone jumps ship to 13th Age (and the Pathfinder problem starts again!)

Well, yes. It would have been praised like a sensible evolution of D&D back then.And it 4E would have been a spin-off product alongside ,it would have been praised as being innovative and a clever re-imagination of the brand, without stepping on the toes of old fans and taking anything away from them. But hindsight is 20/20 and here we are.

I agree with Zaramon. It feels most like BECMI to me, but with a d20-high proression on attacks and some 4e flavoring sprinkled around.

See, this is actually interesting to me because I didn't know what to compare it to until I read this, because I don't have much experience with the older editions. I just knew what it wasn't, not necesarily what it was.

Every edition of DnD has been somewhat different. DnD didn't begin with 3e and shouldn't be defined solely within a 3e context.

I've been playing all editions of D&D. While I agree the first packet had a BECMI feel to it, I think it has steered more towards 3E in later ones - which, incidentally, makes sense if one of the goals is to re-engage players who have moved to Pathfinder. Unfortunately I have little confidence that can be achived without alienating 4E fans.

Well, the folks on the paizo forums seem to be snarking it as a Pathfinder-lite. If this came out in '08 instead of 4th (as mentioned by Uskglass), then I'm sure this would have been a much more celebrated product, but that's just not the case. So, we have a big problem here. However, I'm sure more options to kitbash into a 4e style game with groovy new elements will come around soon. That or everyone jumps ship to 13th Age (and the Pathfinder problem starts again!)

Well, yes. It would have been praised like a sensible evolution of D&D back then.And it 4E would have been a spin-off product alongside ,it would have been praised as being innovative and a clever re-imagination of the brand, without stepping on the toes of old fans and taking anything away from them. But hindsight is 20/20 and here we are.

I totally agree with this.I also think a lot of the doom and gloom from 4e fans stems from the impression the 4e direction is being cut off for good (at least from WotC side). If 4e had been a spin-off, as you suggest, then it could potentially have a new edition of it's own coming along, which improve it in line with 4e lovers' desires/expectations. We could have been happily split into two appreciative player-bases, each with a product line to pay money for.

When I generalize the "feel" of the game (to me, obviously - maybe my players, if I state so), I try to make sure I always spell out that I mean the current incarnation of the playtest rules. God only knows what the final product will look like, at this point, given how dramatic some of the changes have been from packet to packet.

Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)

You have a valid point Uskglass. I'm neither a 3e player nor particularly wedded to 4e, so I don't have the same reactions as many people. I would love to know how 3e and 4e players who don't frequent these forums view the situation. (i.e. are they more open to change, less open?)

I see a little bit of all editions in the playtest material. Next feels like D&D to me! 4e had some great imporvements but felt less D&D than any other. This comes from a gamer with more 2e experience than any other system. Our group is back to enjoying ToM style of play with great enthusiasm!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

I'm a 12 year veteren of 3rd ed and I think the game playes more like 2nd ed with parts of 3rd ed (d20 mechanic) and 4th ed strapped in. it has a few probelms at the moemnt though that alot of people here from all edtions are commentng on (races need work, classes need work, monsters need wrok, fats etc).

Looking forward to the next packet although from the sounds of it it will probably get called the Pathfinder Packet.

Every edition of DnD has been somewhat different. DnD didn't begin with 3e and shouldn't be defined solely within a 3e context.

I've been playing all editions of D&D. While I agree the first packet had a BECMI feel to it, I think it has steered more towards 3E in later ones - which, incidentally, makes sense if one of the goals is to re-engage players who have moved to Pathfinder. Unfortunately I have little confidence that can be achived without alienating 4E fans.

Personally, I find the past two playtest packets, this one and #2, to feel more like 2nd, with a 3rd edition approach and seasoned with 4th. And as a 4e detractor, I think it could use a little more seasoning. To explain, 2nd feel is coming from Skills are reminiscent of non-weapon proficiencies and more emphasis on storytelling, which I often associate with that edition. The 3e feel is in presentation, charts and level progression. While the 4e seasoning has to do with at will spells, hit dice for self healing, Cleric word of power healing spells, and even the maneuvers to a small degree.

I see a little bit of all editions in the playtest material. Next feels like D&D to me! 4e had some great imporvements but felt less D&D than any other. This comes from a gamer with more 2e experience than any other system. Our group is back to enjoying ToM style of play with great enthusiasm!

We too! But we are doing ToTM in 4E (hijaking the 13th Age system and tweaking it a bit)It's funny in a way: we introduced the grid when we moved from 1E to 2E and now we are taking it away in the long tail of 4E.

It is such a shame their first atempt of re uniting the player base failed.

this ofcourse was the essentials edition that was a bigger change to 4th edition then the change from 3 to 3.5 .It did exacty what they say 5th edition will do it gave characters with a fealing closer to the older editions to play along side standard 4th edition characters.Unfortunatly not many people who played 3.X or pathfinder tried it and just dismised this major overhaul as just being another 4th edition suplement.For example the expertise dice mecanic is based on a mecanic from the essentials slayer that also did have no daily powers.

when 5th edition open development was anounced i had hoped the first packet would be close to the essentials edition.maybe with bounded accuracy added skills tweaked and a wizard varation that could chose to have only daily spells.

I still would like people who rejected 4th edition, to play a game with essentials characters only and see how that feals to them.

Looking forward to the next packet although from the sounds of it it will probably get called the Pathfinder Packet.

Why do you say that?

THe changes they are making to it in some cases are duplicating what Pathfinder has back in 2009. Mike mentioned how they are adding a helaing pol to clerics for example. Paizo canged the way turn undead works in PF and a Cleric for example can use channel energy (positive) to heal everyone in a 20' radius 1d6 damage every 2 levels 2d6 3rd level, 3d6 5th lvl etc).

Its not a healing pool as such but it is close as it is limited by the charisma score IIRC. THe Rogue changes were also similar to some PF ideas and the wizard overhaul is kind of superficially similar as wel (PF added at wills as well to wizards). Wizards tradiitons and sorcerer bloodlines were also added to the sorcerer and wizard class in PF.

Form the sound of it the classes will at least resemble the pathfinder ones as some people have commented on the classes right now resembling 3rd ed ones. Personally I think it depends on the class. Cleric 3.5, Fighter 4th ed/essentials, Rogue pre 3rd ed, wizard pre 4th ed.

It will depend on the changes mike talked about though and the way they are implemented. A D&DN cleric can't stack buff spells due to the concentration mechanic (great idea BTW).

Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)

That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.

I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.

Power-level-wise? Sure. But actual ability-wise? The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment. Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e. The reason might surprise you though. It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun. So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.

I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.

Power-level-wise? Sure. But actual ability-wise? The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment. Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e. The reason might surprise you though. It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun. So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that.

Good news! At wills are going back to being able to choose them. As well, they will scale in the next packet. So, you might just like what you see

That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.

I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.

Power-level-wise? Sure. But actual ability-wise? The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment. Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e. The reason might surprise you though. It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun. So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that.

Good news! At wills are going back to being able to choose them. As well, they will scale in the next packet. So, you might just like what you see

Bad news...

The scope and capability of at-wills has been dramatically reduced in 5e as compared to 4e. Look at the list of 4e wizard at wills, they do cool and interesting things. 5e At-will burning hands, magic missle, or ray of frost are still "boring" compared to the at-will capabilities of the 4e wizard.

That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.

I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.

Power-level-wise? Sure. But actual ability-wise? The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment. Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e. The reason might surprise you though. It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun. So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that.

Good news! At wills are going back to being able to choose them. As well, they will scale in the next packet. So, you might just like what you see

Bad news...

The scope and capability of at-wills has been dramatically reduced in 5e as compared to 4e. Look at the list of 4e wizard at wills, they do cool and interesting things. 5e At-will burning hands, magic missle, or ray of frost are still "boring" compared to the at-will capabilities of the 4e wizard.

Really? Then we have completely different senses of what makes an interesting spell. how is 2d4+int damage magic missile any more interesting than a ray of frost in 5e? Because it deals more damage? How is scorching burst more interesting than burning hands? Because it has more range? The mage hand, presitidgitation, and light are virtually identical, plus this time we get minor illusion (one of the coolest level 0 spells ive ever seen), as well as disguse self, mage armor, and more. I don't see how 4e at wills are any more engaging then what we have in 5e.